These arguments are juvenile. It is similar to arguing, "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." or, "when speeding is outlawed, only outlaws will be caught speeding." When chewing gum is a criminal act, only criminals will chew gum.
I don't remember being rich enough to buy a car at 13 and then trying to steal one. Of course, I did not need one at age 13.
Ok, so Canada's gun laws, word for word. What do you believe this would do to the nearly 4 million illegally owned firearms in the United States? Do you believe the criminals would turn these in? You are prepared to spend a few hundred billion dollars to buy back most of the guns you would not allow? you believe you would get that through Congress?
Is this a tweet? Whatever. Though I shouldn't care, I can't get entirely over the embarrassment of knowing whoever tweeted this is probably a Homo sapien also.
You left me with fairly easy questions to answer. Thanks. No. But I also believe only a very small fraction of them are owned by criminals. So the idea is to get rid of most of them, so whenever the few that remain show up, and they will, they will be easy to spot. first question: The money is no problem. We have already seen how easy it is to print 1.7 Trillion. So the money required is really chump change. second question: No!, I don't think it would get through Congress. Even if Congress got rid of the Moscow Mitch filibuster and went back to the traditional filibuster rule, I still think it would be difficult to get enough Democrats to sign on to pass it. But I'd like to see us try.